UESP Forums

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:51 am**

POMC S117 wrote:
highly educated
Is it impossible for us poor folk to be as smart as you rich people?

Hi.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:53 am**

Evidence of the Cam kind!

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:55 am**

If I HAD to pick I'd pick Absolutism, for one reason only, the majority may rule, but the majroity know nothing of what they vote, at least hopefuly with one leader he knows

the majroity may win, but look how many times the majority have been wrong?

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:57 am**

First off, I'm not rich. I can afford to go to a private school only because I'm on a scholarship. But look at history. When the masses have risen to power, the intellectuals have been slaughtered on many occasions, primarily in the popular revolutions of Russia and China, which were driven for the people, despite their lack of democratic ideals.

The Feudal system worked because the Barons and Lords offered protection to the Serfs in exchange for taxes. If they failed to protect their people, they would loose their own wealth and power, and so they did all in their power to meet their obligations. Likewise, without the protection of Lords, the Serfs could not subside in safety. Eventually, the Lords reinvested their wealth back into the villages and towns they held dominion over, and thus the community benefited, bringing us out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance. The problem arose when Imperialism saw conflicts of a grander scale as smaller Kingdoms lusted over other territories and lands.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:58 am**

@Wolfie
I disagree. Speaking about the majority in such absolute terms is a mistake. In many cases, an intelligent and well informed majority is far more powerful than any single man or woman. I suggest that we avoid speaking in absolutes, because no philosophy is ever black and white in real life.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:00 am**

But it was extremely unequal. Why should the people who work hard have to eat rabbit food and rabbit to survive will the lazy lords eat duck in orange sauce. Duruza, I'm certain more "stupid poor" people have been killed than intellectuals.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:02 am**

Dark Lord Cam wrote:@Wolfie
I disagree. Speaking about the majority in such absolute terms is a mistake. In many cases, an intelligent and well informed majority is far more powerful than any single man or woman. I suggest that we avoid speaking in absolutes, because no philosophy is ever black and white in real life.

But can you show me one place where there is an intelligent and well informed majority?

Your assuming something that that hardily ever is true.

In fact I'm hard pressed to think of any except maybe SMALL examples where there was few people.

and when I say intelligent, I'm going to go with "well informed of the topic at hand"

Can you honestly say the majority in America know the first thing of politics?
or even how to even come close to running a country this huge?

I cant tell you how many people (my self to) give ideas that just can not work because we don't know enough, and its impossible for every single person to know enough on every topic.

But it was extremely unequal. Why should the people who work hard have to eat rabbit food and rabbit to survive will the lazy lords eat duck in orange sauce. Duruza,

who says it will be like that? many empires had people eating grand food.
Not every one but even now days not every one eats the same things.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:05 am**

Wolfie wrote:many empies had pepole eating grand food.

Ha! Name one.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:07 am**

So you think an Empire = the high up guy gets all the food?

I must of missed the definition...

My point is, its NOT require for an empire, as for grand food, I should say eats as well as we would have if we had a Democrat during their time.

I don't eat the same as many people, dose that mean we are an empire?
its just how it works and has little to nothing to do with the empire, just the fact almost all society have classes because of cash.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:11 am**

Wolfie, there is a difference between likes and dislikes and the fact that there is not food because the lord gives you little land and taxes you.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:14 am**

Wolfie, notice that I'm not saying it's always true. Only sometimes, much like absolutism only sometimes works.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:15 am**

POMC S117 wrote:Wolfie, there is a difference between likes and dislikes and the fact that there is not food because the lord gives you little land and taxes you.

But give me proof an empire HAS to have this?
I mean we get taxed, and most people only own their house land.
So whats different?

The fact is I cant eat like others, just like they could not.

Wolfie, notice that I'm not saying it's always true. Only sometimes, much like absolutism only sometimes works.

My problem is while I agree that if the majority could be well informed and what not it would work, I cant think of a single time that has ever happen, can you?

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:16 am**

POMC S117 wrote:But it was extremely unequal. Why should the people who work hard have to eat rabbit food and rabbit to survive will the lazy lords eat duck in orange sauce. Duruza, I'm certain more "stupid poor" people have been killed than intellectuals.

I never, ever called the poor, 'stupid'. I said, 'highly' educated for a reason, the upper classes are educated to a higher degree, it's a fact still true today if you look at the public and private school systems. You know that I don't think that any one 'class' is better or worse than any other, but I don't see that numbers gives the largest class the right to dictate, as it dies under Labor Governments in Australia in terms of taxation and the welfare system.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:17 am**

Wolfie, when did I say an Empire HAD to have it to be an Empire?

Duruza, you can be "highly" educated but stupid.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:18 am**

The creation of the constitution?

Abolishing slavery?

I'm sure there's more.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:20 am**

POMC S117 wrote:Wolfie, when did I say an Empire HAD to have it to be an Empire?

So your whole point against Absolutism is that some of them where evil?

and you put

But it was extremely unequal. Why should the people who work hard have to eat rabbit food and rabbit to survive will the lazy lords eat duck in orange sauce.

which may be true, its the same even here, the higher up people live better, nothing changes there.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:23 am**

POMC S117 wrote:Duruza, you can be "highly" educated but stupid.

I know that, I also never said that 'highly' equated to 'better'. I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:23 am**

Wolfie you are making assumptions based off of nothing. I was talking about Feudalism and you decided to argue without reding what I was arguing against.

But how many people are starving because their lord wants a cut of their food.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:28 am**

POMC S117 wrote:Wolfie you are making assumptions based off of nothing. I was talking about Feudalism and you decided to argue without reading what I was arguing against.

But how many people are starving because their lord wants a cut of their food.

You did not quote anyone and mine and his both could of been the target.

I read your thing, you said kings hog the food, and I had just said that Absolutism may be for the better.

Is the last line to me?
If so, how many are starving cause of taxes now?
And once again its NOT always like that, a king has a choice not to do that, not all leaders where evil to their people.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:31 am**

Did I ever say that? I'm sure some kings were nice. Kind. Set up charities. But most just expanded their wealth and power.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:33 am**

POMC S117 wrote:Did I ever say that? I'm sure some kings were nice. Kind. Set up charities. But most just expanded their wealth and power.

Is there proof for this or is that just the fact you always head of the bad kings? (and they make for good stories!)

I would not even try to guess.

Also when a kings wealth grew, if it was not form his people, his people to grew as that helped build roads and what not.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:37 am**

There is proof. I'm too tired to go through my long list of history books and list them all.

Sorry, but I can't understand that last part.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:40 am**

Basically when a king got more gold or what not, it could (not saying it always did) go to help the people

Also just cause you head of the bad kings don't mean there are no Good kings.
its much easier to go in to history by being bad then being good.

I'm not saying your wrong, just highly doubt there is any proof any which way.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:42 am**

Also just cause you head of the bad kings dont mean there are no Good kings.

When did I say that?

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:43 am**

My point was that your saying you will check to show that there are more bad kings, but that may not be the case.
the 2nd sentence goes with the 1st

UESP Forums

Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism

Re: Democracy or Absolutism